Seeing how this thread deteriorated, I don't wish to be associated with it. Be kind to each other.
-
A discussion on the "value" of music
-
I'll write you personally on this topic, Dave, but it will take a bit of thinking and organizing in my head and hunting/pecking/editing at the keyboard to turn those thoughts into intelligible communication. I will have some time this weekend. Just wanted you to know that I saw this and remind you of the inestimable value your music has for me.
-
Why do you put the word value in quotes? I assume, from the rest of your post, that you are referring distinctly to economic value. But even then, the question is too general, too broad. For Paul McCartney or Santana, music has great economic value, they've made millions, or billions in the case of McCartney, through their music.
I would think that every composer finds their music personally valuable, because if they don't they'd simply stop writing. If you're referring to some distant future social/artistic/intellectual value (as Bach's music has achieved) of course nobody alive today can answer that question. People living 200 years from now will answer that question for us if they care enough to study the music of our century.
Since, as you wrote, you don't need to make a living with your music, I wonder why you're concerned with the economic value of music. I would think the personal, artistic and social value would be sufficient and gratifying enough if you have other means to pay the bills.
Some composers make a living scoring soundtracks, as I did. I made a substantial living with my work. But I got tired of doing soundtrack music after 12 years, the intellectual and artistic rewards were not as great as the financial rewards and because I made some smart and lucky investments, I was able to back away from scoring and focus on music that has more personal value to me.
Some composers aren't very good at music composition whether they make millions or whether they don't make a penny off their works. Some composers are superb at what they do regardless of how little or how much money they make. Charles Ives was a gifted and accomplished composer and he sold insurance for a living.
Values are both highly personal and highly subjective. Money and material wealth can be measured in numbers, but values can only be measured by the contentment, happiness, integrity and self-control those lived values do or do not bring to one's experience.
-
Hi,
Strictly as a matter of fact, the OP is somewhat outdated... The days of Napster are now past us. As an historical matter, it ignores the fact that throughout History Music has overwhelmingly been composed and performed without having any commercial value attached to it at all.
While the OP may aspire and appear to be critical it seems to me rather to be yet another dull and unwitting expression of Nihilism... The value of Music, and Art in general, lies elsewhere.
All the best, António
-
Oh ho ... now someone's dropped the "Nihilism" bomb. Lolol. No, I don't think that's what we're dealing with here.
To paraphrase (in English) Nietzsche's summary of the ultimately psychotic state of a nihilistic outlook:-
"What exists, shouldn't. What should exist, doesn't."
It's best reserved for those who, suffering from and finding no other way out of this all-encompassing impasse, typically seek to destroy themselves - and/or in some cases, as much of the world as they can.
The "should" and "shouldn't" words are of course big giveaways that we're very probably dealing here with an ages-old problem for mankind: i.e. ideas (which can endure forever) versus lived, perishable experience. In philosophical literature this bone of contention goes back at least 25 centuries, as epitomised by the Confucius versus Lao Tzu struggle. The human problems of much more recent western modernity still afflicting us today, mostly ain't new at all.
Ok let's get back to here and now.
"Value" has become a very shop-soiled word. I believe we'd benefit from some new word - yet to be coined - meaning "monetary value". Money can be seen as an appallingly crude and unreliable one-dimensional numerical model of the sense of value that humans experience. Human value has no existence whatsoever outside of lived experience. To ask about the value of music is an invitation to enter a horrible quagmire in which nothing can ever be settled, let alone stand up as a firm, clean, clear and lasting conclusion - just like in philosophy and economics. Human life itself versus rude algebraic equations? Oh dear, what a miserable and depressing choice.
So no thanks, I'm not taking up this invitation.
-
Tom,
I always look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks for your kind words.
jsg, inthefold, and Macker: Happy to read your contributions to the thread. Be well, gentlemen!
I'll write you personally on this topic, Dave, but it will take a bit of thinking and organizing in my head and hunting/pecking/editing at the keyboard to turn those thoughts into intelligible communication. I will have some time this weekend. Just wanted you to know that I saw this and remind you of the inestimable value your music has for me.
-
Hi,
Strictly as a matter of fact, the OP is somewhat outdated... The days of Napster are now past us. As an historical matter, it ignores the fact that throughout History Music has overwhelmingly been composed and performed without having any commercial value attached to it at all.
While the OP may aspire and appear to be critical it seems to me rather to be yet another dull and unwitting expression of Nihilism... The value of Music, and Art in general, lies elsewhere.
All the best, AntónioDeleted,
-
Oh ho ... now someone's dropped the "Nihilism" bomb. Lolol. No, I don't think that's what we're dealing with here.
To paraphrase (in English) Nietzsche's summary of this extremely serious and ultimately psychotic state of outlook:-
"What exists, shouldn't. What should exist, doesn't."
It's best reserved for those who, suffering from and finding no other way out of this all-encompassing impasse, typically seek to destroy themselves - and/or in some cases, as much of the world as they can.
The "should" and "shouldn't" words are of course big giveaways that we're very probably dealing here with the ages old problem for mankind: i.e. ideas (which can endure forever) versus lived, perishable experience. In philosophical literature this bone of contention goes back at least 25 centuries, as epitomised by the Confucius versus Lao Tzu struggle. The human problems of much more recent western modernity still afflicting us today, mostly ain't new at all.
Ok let's get back to here and now.
"Value" has become a very shop-soiled word. I believe we'd benefit from some new word - yet to be coined - meaning "monetary value". Money can be seen as an appallingly crude and unreliable one-dimensional numerical model of the sense of value that humans experience. Human value has no existence whatsoever outside of lived experience. To ask about the value of music is an invitation to enter a horrible quagmire in which nothing can ever be settled, let alone stand up as a firm, clean, clear and lasting conclusion - just like in philosophy and economics. Human life itself versus rude algebraic equations? Oh dear, what a miserable and depressing choice.
So no thanks, I'm not taking up this invitation.
Exactly. One cannot separate values from personal experience. Politicians, academics and bullshitters try all the time, but they will never succeed.
-
-
